CLIMATE CHANGE


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ( 1 , 2 ) is an organization that measures and tracks our climate .

I have a page specific on NOAA which you should visit first. Click here

You can find their page for Climate  here.


Last month I saw an article from "dailycaller.com" dated January 28th 2016  claiming

"Hundreds of scientists sent a letter to lawmakers Thursday warning National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists may have violated federal laws when they published a 2015 study purporting to eliminate the 15-year “hiatus” in global warming from the temperature record"

It is Claimed that NOAA scientists adjusted the temperature records from 1998 to 2102 to show twice as much warming as the old analysis to bolster President Barack Obama’s political agenda as every other data set found a pause in rising temperatures



 NOAA must comply with A data and quality act which was passed through Congress. in 2002 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658).

Further research required here as it is said the  guidelines could be misused to delay, manipulate, and unfairly affect the outcome of federal agencies' activities. 

The source article is long

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/3479

;look into OMB and the following

Background and Data Quality History

  • "Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science" (02/2004)
  • "Information Quality and the Law, or, How to Catch a Difficult Horse" (11/2003)
  • "Agencies Finalize Data Quality Guidelines" (11/06/02)
  • "OMB Speaks on Data Quality, Again" (09/16/02)
  • "New Work on Data Quality" (05/28/02)
  • "Agencies 'Adapt' Data Quality Guidelines" (05/15/02)
  • "Industry Targets EPA Data Quality" (04/17/02)
  • "Data Quality Approaches" (04/15/02)





300 scientists consisting of 150 doctorates in a related field, 25 climate or atmospheric scientists, 23 geologists, 18 meteorologists, 51 engineers, 74 physicists, 20 chemists and 12 economists wrote to U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) 

“We, the undersigned, scientists, engineers, economists and others, who have looked carefully into the effects of carbon dioxide released by human activities, wish to record our support for the efforts of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology to ensure that federal agencies complied with federal guidelines that implemented the Data Quality Act,” 

Additionally, one signer was a Nobel Prize winning physicist and two were astronauts.

Source to file  :  https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/300_signatories.pdf

300_signatories.pdf 300_signatories.pdf
Size : 496.461 Kb
Type : pdf



Smith launched an investigation into NOAA’s study in December 2015 and as a result NOAA surrendered emails to congressional investigators.

 http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/16/noaa-officials-finally-surrender-staff-emails-to-lawmakers/

https://lamarsmith.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/noaa-officials-finally-surrender-staff-emails-to-lawmakers


It is Claimed NOAA achieved the new data by  upwardly adjusting temperature readings taken from the engine intakes of ships.

As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists,

"the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use,” wrote climate scientists Dr. Patrick J. Michaels and Dr. Richard S. Lindzen of the libertarian Cato Institute on the in the science blog "Watts Up With That"

“Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable.”


“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts wrote on the same science blog

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise. Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/



The 2016 article i saw can be read Here 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

and other sources here and here


And the article from April 2015 here and here

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/




NOAA has the article on their site dated June 4th 2015 which you can still read here.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2015/noaa-analysis-journal-science-no-slowdown-in-global-warming-in-recent-years.html

Notice that the title says

"Science publishes new NOAA analysis: Data show no recent slowdown in global warming"  with

[UPDATED AT 3:45 P.M. ET: HEADLINE TRUNCATED; NO LONGER REFERS TO ORIGINAL STUDY TITLE. TITLE WAS REVISED TODAY BY THE JOURNAL SCIENCE AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION]"


The Study / report link is provided by NOAA But the June 4th version which i couldn't access as it requests i subscribe and redirects me here where i would have to pay $45 


There is a link to a June 26th version and the "full text" says

Walking back talk of the end of warming

Previous analyses of global temperature trends during the first decade of the 21st century seemed to indicate that warming had stalled. This allowed critics of the idea of global warming to claim that concern about climate change was misplaced. Karl et al. now show that temperatures did not plateau as thought and that the supposed warming “hiatus” is just an artifact of earlier analyses. Warming has continued at a pace similar to that of the last half of the 20th century, and the slowdown was just an illusion.

Science, this issue p. 1469




Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

  1. Thomas R. Karl1,*
  2. Anthony Arguez1
  3. Boyin Huang1
  4. Jay H. Lawrimore1
  5. James R. McMahon2,
  6. Matthew J. Menne1
  7. Thomas C. Peterson1
  8. Russell S. Vose1
  9. Huai-Min Zhang1

+ Author Affiliations

  1. *Corresponding author. E-mail: thomas.r.karl@noaa.gov

Science  04 Jun 2015:
pp. 
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5632


The info and metrics indicated

Picked up by 78 news outlets

Blogged by 53

Tweeted by 422

On 50 Facebook pages

Referenced in 2 Wikipedia pages

Mentioned in 14 Google+ posts

Reddited by 4

244 readers on Mendeley

4 readers on CiteULike


And its a very well tilted Article even according to NOAA